Notices by a kilo of saucepans (rakslice) (rakslice@mastodon.social)

@thomasfuchs oh yeah, zorin... as a bonus for signing up to the cartel right now, you'll receive a complimentary not getting dropped into san francisco bay from the company zeppelin

lol, what did that take, a whole couple of months?

honestly the $100 million training minimum feels like somebody literally riffing on the old line: 'But for de big stealing dey puts yo' picture in de paper and yo' statue in de Hall of Fame when you croaks!'

https://archive.fo/20260411130613/https://www.wired.com/story/openai-backs-bill-exempt-ai-firms-model-harm-lawsuits/

The wild thing about firefox isn't that its weird corporate "non-profit" org has gone fully bad decisions mode, it's that it's so riddled with bugs from 10 years ago there's basically no reason to use it except for the stance that that org is dismantling https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/1136796

To be fair this beaverton story that jwz picked up is just ha-ha-only-serious at this point
https://www.thebeaverton.com/2026/03/ai-job-losses-free-up-time-for-unemployed-mobs-to-burn-down-tech-ceos-houses/

The bill presupposes that there is an "account holder" who is over 18, but the implication from the term that the account holder holds an account is not referenced in the definition or otherwise described.

LB: fwiw i think what people are worried about is the currently proposed california ab 1043, but the bill they've got is an ill conceived ill fitting house of cards that is probably not going to go anywhere other than being quietly withdrawn after sufficient ridicule

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1043

The age bucket of the user has to be available to any "covered application store" used, which is defined in a way that includes any random internet website you download software from

If somebody implemented this with even the age of the "account holder" self-reported, it's unclear to me if that would be non-compliant in some way

In practice whatever age verification that implies is the only potential actual verification here, but that is not otherwise described; the age of the actual user, which is required to be given at "account setup" and which the age bucket flags reported are based on, is not required to be otherwise verified

And how does an API some party is required to provide know the purpose the information it provides is going to be used for?

etc.

I just stopped reading

this thing is a basic editing fail

I wouldn't have even commented about it if it wasn't for the open source community around here starting to fret about it

The bill keeps using language like:

'An operating system provider shall do all of the following:
[...]
(3) Send only the minimum amount of information necessary to comply with this title and shall not share the digital signal information with a third party for a purpose not required by this title."

There is no purpose of the information stated anywhere in the bill

@thomasfuchs lol, this is like a hanlon's razor corollary that keeps coming to me in lots of different ways: never attribute to scruples what can be explained by inconvenience

It is kind of funny that we seem to have leapfrogged directly into the worst part of government by event futures shitheads

of course https://www.theverge.com/tech/887040/polymarket-iran-war-betting-invaluable

I think even this sort of armchair podcast level criticism needs to be able to tackle arguments like the one in the palmer lucky tweet they mention head on by actually understanding the point it's trying to make and addressing that point directly first before putting it in the 'great replacement' square hole

Re that podcast about the war department AI announcements: At risk of tapping the sign I will highlight I evidently don't particularly care for defence contractors in general or this type of them in particular, so this is right up my alley in theory, but...

it is however, kind of funny that we are all thinking about dr. strangelove at the same time

like ultimately when somebody is cynically making multiple mutually exclusive arguments against immigration and voting rights in parallel, those arguments do belong in that square hole -- and I can't rule that out in this instance, but if you want to present a case for that and you have one to present you still have to actually present it if you want to convince anybody

or else they just come across as unserious, in the same sort of way as I view chapo trap house as unserious: a bunch of people who when you really look at it have revealed they don't actually care about the issues and are just sitting around using political issues as fodder for chatter and drama they ultimately have no position on in the manner of a sort of debate club

parody really did just die in the past couple of years didn't it